bacht

Doesn't that sort of teaching go back to OT writings? Even Proverbs advises being content with little. The bit about leaving your family does seem radical, but if the New Age was expected at any time wouldn't the institutions of this world lose their importance?

Sociologically it seems reasonable to assume that most early Christians were not rich people. Paul mentions his own poverty and helps with a collection for the Judeans.

sschlichter

I think this is true (at least in part). it is a mistake to hack the one sentence out of the passage and treat it like each numbered verse is it's own self-contained nugget of instruction independant of (at least) the immediate context.

I do not understand focusing on the initial commands (obey the law, give away everything, follow me) when 10:25-27 is the real answer to the mans question of what shall I do to have eternal life...

10:25 easier for rich man to go thru the eye of a needle (aka impossible)
10:26 disiples conclude this is an unexpected turn (Who then?)
10:27 it is impossible for men, only possible for God.

~Steve

JoeWallack

JW:
In order to evaluate the clarity of "Mark's" Jesus' instruction to "follow me" at the Text level you have to analyze how the characters who are Jesus' audience in the Text would have understood the instructions.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_10

JW:
The "one" is Jesus' audience here at the Text level. He comes from nowhere to Jesus. The Passion instruction has only been given to Jesus' Disciples. When Jesus says "follow me" to the one, the one would not know anything about "follow me" being connected to Passion. The one leaves before Jesus even explains what "follow me" means.

At the Text level Jesus' instruction to "follow me" to the one isn't just unclear, it's unknown.

This is the Type of analysis I'm looking for at this point in this Thread. Is "Mark's" Jesus' instructions on how to obtain Eternal Life clear at the Text level? After the one leaves Jesus' audience is expanded at the Text level. Is Jesus' instruction clearer to the expanded audience?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

bacht

But isn't one of the key themes in Mark the inability of Jesus' followers to understand his teachings? Is Mark "talking over the heads" of the disciples to us Gentiles, winking his eye at the foolish Jewish Christians who missed the point of it all?

Elijah

As Bacht pointed out the point of the story is that the witnesses don’t understand what Jesus is saying fully or even remotely. (The story of an educated Jew going back home to his backwater town to teach only to find that no one can understand him like from plato’s cave). The “follow me” stuff is confusing to them until you see that “follow me” means to your death at the end of the story. Instruction in the story on how to follow him isn’t spoken but shown.

On the text level from a reader of the story the instruction should be plainly clear. To a character in the story who hasn’t seen the end of the story yet then it’s not written as clear to them.

I think you’re getting too wrapped up in the commandments part of following Christ. You have to be moral in order to be a martyr or people will just say you were killed for your crimes or money instead of seeing you as a true martyr.

bacht

Assuming there was a Jesus teaching around 30 C.E., how would his message be different from the Pharisees? Didn't they believe in a resurrection? How did one achieve this if not by following the Law?

Is the Christian message in this scenario about a greater righteousness than the Pharisees, closer to a Cynic model of absolute poverty? Is the message "follow me" an invitation to self-sacrifice and martyrdom?

Or is the Christian message simply "Repent for the end is near", announcing the end of the age? If the point is the apocalyptic end of things, following Jesus would be a temporary vocation wouldn't it?

[sorry for all the question marks, I'm self-conscious about making firm statements in this group, too many who know more than me ]

JoeWallack

JW:
Chuck-E! Chucky Baby! Sorry.

Who is the story applicable to? There's no avoiding the Text, like modern Evangelists do, to find out. Let's trace the Audience here:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_10

JW:
Jesus' audience here looks to first be the one and the Disciples and is than only the Disciples. Again, the Key question of this Thread at this point is is "Mark's" Jesus' instruction on how to obtain Eternal Life clear at the Text level.

The emphasis of the one's story is "riches" but this is only part of the clarity question. So, for starters, is Jesus' instruction here clear to the one at the Text level? Again, here are the instructions to the one:

1) "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor thy father and mother."

2) "One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor,"

3) "follow me"

We have the following clarity problems:

1) Which specific commandments are being referred to?

2) Is this literal or figurative? Is this additional to 1) or part of 1)? Why don't most Christians do this?

3) The "one" never receives an explanation as to what this means. Is it literal or figurative?

At the Text level it's clear to me that "Mark's" Jesus' instructions on how to obtain Eternal Life were unclear to the one. At the Text level Jesus and the one act as though 1) and 2) are clear to them. But 3) is not.

The next step is, if we expand the audience at the Text level to the Disciples, is Jesus' instruction here, which refers to the one, clear to the expanded audience?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

bacht

I agree. But did Mark do this on purpose? Was he trying to illustrate the futility of the Christian movement?

sschlichter

the young man is a stage prop.

JoeWallack

JW
Regarding failure of "Mark's" Jesus' disciples to understand Jesus' instructions for Eternal Life, at this point I am asking a broader question. Does "Mark" itself fail to give clear instruction as opposed to giving clear instruction that is just not understood/accepted.

We've only looked at the rich man's story so far and it's clear that this story was Negatively defined. Jesus explained the defect or why the rich man would not achieve Eternal Life. A negative definition favors Entertainment over Theology. The rich man's story continues with the expanded audience of the Disciples and we now need to evaluate the clarity of "Mark's" instruction here to the Disciples.

The above indirectly effects the value of "Mark" as witness evidence. Because of the Impossible claims of "Mark" the serious student can conclude that "Mark" probably contains relatively little or no historical witness. By "historical witness" I mean eyewitnesses who give historical testimony. In polemics though the Apologist tries to argue that "Mark" is based to some extent on eyewitness testimony even if "Mark" was not an eyewitness. The greater the Entertianment value of "Mark" the less likely it is based on eyewitnesses. If "Mark's" instruction for Eternal Life is unclear than "Mark's" intent was likely Entertainment to a significant degree because a Theological intent would require clear instruction regarding the most important issue to a Christian.

Note that "Mark" lacks the clear instruction of the Sermons on the Mount/Plain that "Matthew" and "Luke" have. "Mark" has a primary objective of showing that no one accepted/understood Jesus' Passion at a time when there was no Gospel narrative that showed anyone who did. Therefore, this could not have been an evangelical tool of a disciple. We must consider the possibility that "Mark" intended to show that everyone failed, including Jesus. Clearly "Mark's" Jesus' Mission is a Failure at the Text level. It can only be resurrected at the Sub-text level. But why would historical witness do that?



Joseph